War, HUH! It's out on pdf Options

[Stahlseele]

No one can defeat the Quad Laser...

'm sorry, i don't follow? O.o

[otakusensei]

'm sorry, i don't follow? O.o

Aqua Teen Hunger Force, from back when I still watched it. A very slow final attack.

[Stahlseele]

Ah, never watched that.

[TW]

Well, you should. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

No, seriously, you should!

[Aaron]

Only if the mage is stupid enought to not dodge the slowed down bullet (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

With his (or her) slowed-down dodge?

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Slow does not restrict effectiveness of Defense, just the damage caused by attacks.

[hermit]

Aaron as in Aaron Pavao, writer and presumed author of the rules?

If you are, could you please tell us what the intent of the Slow spell was? A magic air cushion, or an instant immunity to bullets for mages?

[Cthulhudreams]

I've said it before, hopefully won't have to say it again - having issues with a book/product is just fine. Slamming the authors is not. Many of them are Users here.

Also, I will point Carl Sargent co-authored Black Madonna which high lights the much maligned Leonardo. Tir Tairngire is one of the more heatedly debated sourcebooks, written by Nigel Findley. Not everything from the past is gold (depending on tastes, YMMV), and not everything from the new guys is bad. If you don't like an author, that's just fine. You can give your recommendations without name calling.

Can I say I find this policy rather bizarre? Consider films - people group together films precisely because the same director was behind them, you can recommend a movie because it's a Hitchcock movies, and by the same token anything directed by Uwe Boll is likely to be an audiovisual plague delivery mechanism that you'll pay for the privileged of. So my question is, can I make a specific technical critique that an author lacks technical proficiency (like Uwe Boll), has poor romance scenes (George Lucas), or has a consistent history of good product (like Hitchcock), without breaching the rules? The bizarreness is the inability to do the same thing with books is strange.

I'm totally on board with avoiding personal attacks, but I don't get the ban on technical critiques.

[Caine Hazen]

Apparently the rating 10 programs, which I would agree with.

I still have problems thinking that the military gets bleeding edge stuff when they're still running Windows 98 on their computers in the machine shop. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Odd that Doc, they have a POA&M in for those? Cause that I know of the MTOs ae out for the latest SDC so everyone will be over to 7 by Dec 2011

[Doc Chase]

Odd that Doc, they have a POA&M in for those? Cause that I know of the MTOs ae out for the latest SDC so everyone will be over to 7 by Dec 2011

Probably - it's been a while since I've been on the Nellis flight line.

[Kagetenshi]

Can I say I find this policy rather bizarre? Consider films - people group together films precisely because the same director was behind them, you can recommend a movie because it's a Hitchcock movies, and by the same token anything directed by Uwe Boll is likely to be an audiovisual plague delivery mechanism that you'll pay for the privileged of. So my question is, can I make a specific technical critique that an author lacks technical proficiency (like Uwe Boll), has poor romance scenes (George Lucas), or has a consistent history of good product (like Hitchcock), without breaching the rules? The bizarreness is the inability to do the same thing with books is strange.

I'm totally on board with avoiding personal attacks, but I don't get the ban on technical critiques.

I'm not too keen on it either, but my guess is that the trigger was calling the clique "corrupt", which isn't an inherently technical critique. Still shuts down a fair bit of discussion, but I can see how attacking it could seem like a good idea at the time.

~J

[Dr.Rockso]

Aqua Teen Hunger Force, from back when I still watched it. A very slow final attack.

More like the Quad Glacier.

[Method]

Can I say I find this policy rather bizarre? Consider films - people group together films precisely because the same director was behind them, you can recommend a movie because it's a Hitchcock movies, and by the same token anything directed by Uwe Boll is likely to be an audiovisual plague delivery mechanism that you'll pay for the privileged of. So my question is, can I make a specific technical critique that an author lacks technical proficiency (like Uwe Boll), has poor romance scenes (George Lucas), or has a consistent history of good product (like Hitchcock), without breaching the rules? The bizarreness is the inability to do the same thing with books is strange.

I'm totally on board with avoiding personal attacks, but I don't get the ban on technical critiques.

As moderators we have had more than a few discussions about where to draw this line. The rule of thumb we have come up with is that if someone isn't a member than we consider them a public personality and all bets are off. Lucas, Hitchcock and Boil are not members, nor are Loren Colman, President Obama or Michael Jackson, so say what you will.

But many of the freelancers, production staff and the current line developer are members (active or otherwise) and we feel they are entitled to the same protection under the ToS as any other member. Calling them corrupt (or what have you) may be verging on a grey area, but isn't constructive or professional and doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion anyway.

But we are all for constructive criticism of the product, the production, editing, proofreading or writing. Constructive being the key word. Realize that you all have a valuable opportunity here to talk to the people that are making the game you love. Calling them names isn't going to make them want to listen to you.

[otakusensei]

As moderators we have had more than a few discussions about where to draw this line. The rule of thumb we have come up with is that if someone isn't a member than we consider them a public personality and all bets are off. Lucas, Hitchcock and Boil are not members, nor are Loren Colman, President Obama or Michael Jackson, so say what you will.

But many of the freelancers, production staff and the current line developer are members (active or otherwise) and we feel they are entitled to the same protection under the ToS as any other member. Calling them corrupt (or what have you) may be verging on a grey area, but isn't constructive or professional and doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion anyway.

But we are all for constructive criticism of the product, the production, editing, proofreading or writing. Constructive being the key word. Realize that you all have a valuable opportunity here to talk to the people that are making the game you love. Calling them names isn't going to make them want to listen to you.

Alright, honest question here. I feel the rabble is roused enough and I just want clarification.

Can we site specific issues in published work by members of this board and voice our opinions? I can see "They (CGL) are a bunch of assholes who smell bad and have lousy taste in socks" to be an unconstructive insult. But if I say "Jason Hardy needs to read these books before he pimps them in a press release." is that ok? It addresses a fact, a real measurable thing, and opens the subject up for discussion by the member.

[Method]

Yes I think that is reasonable. So long as people understand the fine line they are treading and make a thoughtful effort to stay on the right side of it. Obviously it is all dependent on the content post by post, but things like that are within the terms of service and I think helpful.

[Aaron]

Aaron as in Aaron Pavao, writer and presumed author of the rules?

If you are, could you please tell us what the intent of the Slow spell was? A magic air cushion, or an instant immunity to bullets for mages?

I'm reluctant to answer you, given your recent posts. You asked nicely, though, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to make it worth your time.

Another edit: My Shadowrun work is work for hire. That means I make the words and design some of the systems, but it doesn't belong to me and I don't have the final say over things. I am not any kind of authority on how the rules work or what anybody's intention was except mine.

One of the original design guidelines was "bigger, better." Peter and John wanted f'in' scary stuff. We already had a lot of equipment in there, and I wanted to throw the magicians (and adepts and technomancers) a bone, too.

Slow was initially a mass levitate spell (which is where the 200 kg per hit limit came from). That was obviously pretty damn crazy already, so I limited the effect to a slowing one.

It occurred to me that the slow spell would protect against bullets and shrapnel (I believe it's mentioned in the spell description). I was unconcerned, though, because a lot of things protect against bullets and shrapnel (various barrier spells are really good at it, for example, as are walls). Players have come up with all sorts of clever ways to mitigate those problems, so I had faith in players to handle this one. Players are so ingenious; I recall a story about how an AD&D player overcame an enemy protected by an anti-magic shell by polymorphing a boulder into a small rock and casually tossing it at his target.

Anyway, I've thought of a few ways to get at a target protected by a slow spell. Sorcery is one way, of course. Gas attacks work fine. Spirits with Engulf. Bayonets and many other sharp things that go into soft things that scream and bleed aren't any less dangerous; I tried to make certain that it was clear that forces were not affected, just speed, so you can still shish-kabob someone with a spear or fillet them with a monowhip, it's just more agonizing. Edited to add I'm pretty sure that a compression wave propagates, rather than moves; a physicist can probably tell us how much the air in a location moves during, say, an event caused by a concussion grenade.

I'd love to hear other ways to neutralize the advantage granted by the slow spell. That sort of geeking out is the kind of conversation I dig.

Any other (polite but pointed) questions?

[otakusensei]

I'm reluctant to answer you, given your recent posts. You asked nicely, though, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to make it worth your time.

Another edit: My Shadowrun work is work for hire. That means I make the words and design some of the systems, but it doesn't belong to me and I don't have the final say over things. I am not any kind of authority on how the rules work or what anybody's intention was except mine.

One of the original design guidelines was "bigger, better." Peter and John wanted f'in' scary stuff. We already had a lot of equipment in there, and I wanted to throw the magicians (and adepts and technomancers) a bone, too.

Slow was initially a mass levitate spell (which is where the 200 kg per hit limit came from). That was obviously pretty damn crazy already, so I limited the effect to a slowing one.

It occurred to me that the slow spell would protect against bullets and shrapnel (I believe it's mentioned in the spell description). I was unconcerned, though, because a lot of things protect against bullets and shrapnel (various barrier spells are really good at it, for example, as are walls). Players have come up with all sorts of clever ways to mitigate those problems, so I had faith in players to handle this one. Players are so ingenious; I recall a story about how an AD&D player overcame an enemy protected by an anti-magic shell by polymorphing a boulder into a small rock and casually tossing it at his target.

Anyway, I've thought of a few ways to get at a target protected by a slow spell. Sorcery is one way, of course. Gas attacks work fine. Spirits with Engulf. Bayonets and many other sharp things that go into soft things that scream and bleed aren't any less dangerous; I tried to make certain that it was clear that forces were not affected, just speed, so you can still shish-kabob someone with a spear or fillet them with a monowhip, it's just more agonizing. Edited to add I'm pretty sure that a compression wave propagates, rather than moves; a physicist can probably tell us how much the air in a location moves during, say, an event caused by a concussion grenade.

I'd love to hear other ways to neutralize the advantage granted by the slow spell. That sort of geeking out is the kind of conversation I dig.

Any other (polite but pointed) questions?

I see where you're coming from, but there's still an issue I see. Spells are kind of unique in that if a magician sees it, they can learn to do it. Even if they hear about it (and have GM permission) they can make that spell. It's a lot harder to control than a Thor shot.

I also dislike some of the back peddling that I see happening. You're not doing nearly as bad as some folks, but when you mention yourself that you may need to consult a physicist on the mechanics of a spell, something went wrong and it needs more work. Like you said though, you don't work in a vacuum and it isn't fair to lay the blame entirely on you. I'd be interested in a better look at the current development process at CGL if your willing to share.

Personally I like the idea of a mass levitate spell even more. Maybe with a special permanent effect like Mana Static that causes it to function for a number of rounds equal to the force after the spell ceases to be sustained. But during that time it just gently takes anyone effected to the ground. Throw a big enough drain modifier on it and it's uber while not game busting. Also makes tactical sense as it has the magciian hitting the LZ and freeing himself up for combat as he switched out of a utility role.

[Aaron]

I see where you're coming from, but there's still an issue I see. Spells are kind of unique in that if a magician sees it, they can learn to do it. Even if they hear about it (and have GM permission) they can make that spell. It's a lot harder to control than a Thor shot.

True, but that's just the cost (or lack thereof) due to scarceness. Magicians have to pay other costs as well, not just Drain and karma, but opportunity costs as well. Turn to goo is a hella powerful spell, but it isn't often used because there's another spell that works as well or better. As far as slow is concerned, I think the self-healing, nearly-free-hardened-armor physical barrier is likely to be more efficient at defending against attacks at sufficiently high numbers of hits.

I also dislike some of the back peddling that I see happening. You're not doing nearly as bad as some folks, but when you mention yourself that you may need to consult a physicist on the mechanics of a spell, something went wrong and it needs more work.

With all due respect, I'd like to correct your assertion. I did not back-pedal on the physics, I just said that I didn't know how fast individual air molecules moved during a compression wave event. I'm a big fan of research and due diligence, so I the math on the physics (for example, figuring out how much energy would be unleashed when a tungsten telephone pole hits the ground at terminal velocity). I admit that my fluid dynamics is rusty, but to be fair I only needed it for my post, not for any writing I did for WAR. Rest assured, if I had needed it, I would have done the research.

Like you said though, you don't work in a vacuum and it isn't fair to lay the blame entirely on you. I'd be interested in a better look at the current development process at CGL if your willing to share.

I'm not sure it's my place to talk about internal stuff. Besides, I don't know much about how it works. I get to talk to some folks via Skype or email from time to time (it used to be weekly; I miss those geek-fests), but other than that, my words go into the black box, and they come out all shiny and illustrated and stuff.

[CanRay]

Everytime someone brings physics into discussions on Science-Fiction as it relates to things that obviously break the laws of physics as we currently understand them, or into magic in any way shape or form, God kills a kitten!

...

I hate cats, so keep right on doing it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) (Actually, it's cats are trying to kill me, and I like as much support from on high as possible. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) BTW: It's an allergy, and they love jumping at me, claws out.).

[otakusensei]

True, but that's just the cost (or lack thereof) due to scarceness. Magicians have to pay other costs as well, not just Drain and karma, but opportunity costs as well. Turn to goo is a hella powerful spell, but it isn't often used because there's another spell that works as well or better. As far as slow is concerned, I think the self-healing, nearly-free-hardened-armor physical barrier is likely to be more efficient at defending against attacks at sufficiently high numbers of hits.

Yeah, but physical barrier isn't a half ass levitate as well. Slow also had the (arguable) ability to stop all bullets at Force 1. That needs some work.

With all due respect, I'd like to correct your assertion. I did not back-pedal on the physics, I just said that I didn't know how fast individual air molecules moved during a compression wave event. I'm a big fan of research and due diligence, so I the math on the physics (for example, figuring out how much energy would be unleashed when a tungsten telephone pole hits the ground at terminal velocity). I admit that my fluid dynamics is rusty, but to be fair I only needed it for my post, not for any writing I did for WAR. Rest assured, if I had needed it, I would have done the research.

You were not specifically back peddling, that was being done on the Auschwitz piece. But if there is a calculation or a mechanical understanding that makes a spell more clear, it needs to be in the description and not in a web forum. That's more what I was referring too. I'm sure you do research, and I understand the Leadership rules are yours. Grats on those, they work well and were sorely needed.

I'm not sure it's my place to talk about internal stuff. Besides, I don't know much about how it works. I get to talk to some folks via Skype or email from time to time (it used to be weekly; I miss those geek-fests), but other than that, my words go into the black box, and they come out all shiny and illustrated and stuff.

Thank you, even that helps.

Working in IT and dealing with communication between distant sites I can see some of the hallmarks of communication break down in the work coming out of CGL. Hearing that they aren't holding even weekly calls says something. I'm sure there's communication between freelancers and development outside of that, too. But experience tells me that you can't slack off on the scheduled official "face time" without losing something.

[Adam]

I would classify it as _extremely unusual_ for a line developer to have a weekly meeting with all freelancers, or even just all the writers.

A weekly meeting during a project for those working on the project? Perhaps. Focused meetings when necessary? Absolutely. But weekly meetings that require people to be there who don't need to be there (and in the case of freelancers who aren't paid to be there) ... ugh, not a good use of people's time, IMO.

[Wounded Ronin]

Navy is still getting rid of M-60s. My Dad used those in Vietnam. I got trained on it before the M-240. From what I hear, the army is supposed to have all the good stuff but that might just be more of "the grass is always greener". The spec ops guys do get all the good stuff though. Ridiculous amounts of money on their gear.

They should raffle those M-60s off to the public. An M-60 is the perfect centerpiece for any interior design emphasizing the classical or the old fashioned.

[fistandantilus4....]

Typically a demilitarized weapon is sold to a museum for a piece, or slagged. Which goes to show that you can get what you want with enough money. M-60s typically don't make good table pieces though. Not enough room for the roast, and there's always that one whiney guy that doesn't want the machine gun pointed at him all evening.

[otakusensei]

I would classify it as _extremely unusual_ for a line developer to have a weekly meeting with all freelancers, or even just all the writers.

A weekly meeting during a project for those working on the project? Perhaps. Focused meetings when necessary? Absolutely. But weekly meetings that require people to be there who don't need to be there (and in the case of freelancers who aren't paid to be there) ... ugh, not a good use of people's time, IMO.

I mostly meant projects, and I understand the time constraints of freelance writers.

Does Posthuman use online collaborative writing tools? You've talked about 37signals before and I was able to get a few projects at work up and running in Basecamp. I really like it. I know CGL was using it last year as well, but I don't recall hearing much about it lately. Properly used, tools like that can go a long way to increasing communication and alleviating the need for increasingly high fidelity real time communication.

With all the time between releases it's disheartening to see the books by CGL getting released in the state they do. That's mostly why I wonder about their process and if Jason is taking steps to improve it. While I'm not a big fan of the current developer I recognize that there are a lot of people that are going to pick up these books and not know the whole story. Poor work can have long reaching effects, even after things are addressed and changed for the better. Look at the auto companies in the US and the continued perception that they are inferior to imports. It doesn't even matter that "US" cars are being designed and built overseas and my father moved down to Kentucky to make front end parts for Hondas. That perception can stick around long after quality is restored and improved.

[CanRay]

Typically a demilitarized weapon is sold to a museum for a piece, or slagged. Which goes to show that you can get what you want with enough money. M-60s typically don't make good table pieces though. Not enough room for the roast, and there's always that one whiney guy that doesn't want the machine gun pointed at him all evening.

Which is probably going to happen to those M1 Garands the South Koreans are trying to sell to the US Civilian Market. Seems the Gun Control Freaks are mad because they "Were military weapons" and all that.

Personally, I want an M-60 on my lap, as I rock in my chair on the porch... That'll learn them damned kids to stay off my lawn!